Promoting Parental Participation in Education (News and Research 226)

Promoting parental involvement in schools: Evidence from Mexico (News and Research 226)

Promoting parental involvement in schools: Evidence from Mexico

Felipe Barrera-Osorio | Paul Gertler | Nozomi Nakajima | Harry Patrinos

Group-based interventions can increase parental engagement in school, change parents’ behavior at home and improve children’s behavior in school

Parents play an important role in their children’s educational experiences and outcomes. But parents often face challenges when supporting their children through school. For example, schools often assume that parents are familiar with how to engage with teachers and school administrators. This assumption can lead to systematic exclusion of low-income, culturally, and linguistically diverse parents from advocating for their children’s needs and accessing school resources (Lee and Bowen 2006). To overcome the challenges that parents face, parental involvement programs (also known as family engagement programs) aim to improve school-and-parent communication to support children’s overall learning environment. 

Experimental strategies to promote parental involvement in Mexico

In a new Barrera-Osorio et al. 2020 (Barrera-Osorio et al. 2020), we study the effects of parental involvement programs implemented at scale by the national government of Mexico. This is an important feature because studies from efficacy field trials do not always yield similar results when implemented at scale (Banerjee et al. 2017). The scaling up was made possible by delivering the programs to parents through parent associations, an established group that exists in all public schools in Mexico. 

We analyze data from two randomized controlled trials conducted across 430 public schools and over 17,500 students in Mexico. These schools have large indigenous populations that have faced a long history of discrimination. In this setting, parental involvement programs hold particularly great promise for improving school-and-parent relationships.

We evaluate two types of parental involvement programs. In the information intervention, parents attended group sessions where they were informed about children’s developmental milestones and ways to become involved in their children’s education. In the grant intervention, parent associations received a grant to use towards improving schools. The grant amount was modest, covering about 83% of the out-of-pocket educational costs spent by parents in our study setting. To examine how these grants affect parental involvement at the extensive and intensive margins, we examine the effects of providing a single dose of the grant (single grant) as well as the effect of doubling the grant amount (double grant).1  

Programme effects on parents and children

  • Providing parent groups with information about how they can support their children’s education increased parental involvement in schools, changed parenting behavior at home, and reduced children’s disciplinary action in school. The information intervention increased regular meetings between parents and teachers to discuss student performance. At home, parents that received the information intervention were significantly more likely to be aware of their children’s school assignments and to help their children with homework. Children whose parents received the information intervention were less likely to face disciplinary action in schools.
  • Providing parent associations with single grants had no effects on parenting behavior or children’s educational outcomes. Parent associations that received the single grant amount did not significantly change the behavior of parents or their children. As the grant amount was quite modest, parent associations were not able to make meaningful changes in schools from the single dose of grant money.
  • Doubling the grant amount in parent associations had a temporary effect on parental involvement in schools. The additional money provided to parent associations in the double grant intervention gave parents a temporary “seat at the table” with respect to school decision-making processes. However, the effects only lasted for one year. The double grant did not affect parenting behavior at home or children’s educational outcomes.
  • Across the different types of parental involvement interventions, there were no effects on teaching practices or on student test scores on the national standardized exam. We hypothesized that parental involvement interventions may lead to greater parental oversight over teachers in how they manage their classrooms, which in turn may induce teachers to exert greater effort. However, we did not find evidence to support this hypothesis. Given the strength of teacher unions in Mexico (Estrada 2019), there may be little incentive for teachers to directly respond to parental demands. 

Trust as a key mechanism for parental involvement

What might explain the divergent results between providing information and providing grants to parent associations? Parental involvement programs rely on the formation of successful social ties between parents and teachers to collectively support the needs of children. A large body of theoretical and empirical research suggests that trust is a core component of social capital (Putnam 2001) and the absence of trust severely hampers transactions between actors (Fehr 2009). In Figure 1, we show how each of the interventions altered trust between parents and teachers.

Figure 1 Trust between parents and teachers

Note: Points are treatment effect estimates and error bars are 95% confidence intervals.  

  • The information intervention enhanced parents’ trust towards teachers. In the information sessions, parents were informed about what teachers were teaching in school and how the learning objectives aligned with their children’s development. These sessions gave parents the opportunity to receive repeated positive signals about teachers, which enhanced their trust for teachers. 
  • The double grant reduced parents’ and teachers’ trust towards one another. The grants gave parents more financial authority over school resources. Given the flexibility in how these funds were used, the double grant intervention created “an incomplete social contract” (Ostrom 2000), whereby parents and teachers did not share common expectations about how these funds should be distributed. Thus, the institutional context surrounding the double grant intervention led to a decline in trust between teachers and parents.

 Policy implications

Our results suggest that low-cost, group-based information interventions can increase parental engagement in schools, change parenting behavior at home, and improve children’s behavior in school. The impacts were particularly large for indigenous families, suggesting that parental involvement programs can help improve school-family relationships for the most excluded population. The information intervention is extremely low-cost, with a per-student cost of approximately US$ 0.98. 

We argue that the success of parental involvement programs relies on the formation of social ties between parents and teachers. In particular, fostering trust between parents and teachers is important for promoting parental involvement in schools. As we saw in the double grant intervention, parental involvement programs can backfire if institutional rules are unclear about expectations as parents attempt to increase their involvement in schools. 

References

Banerjee, A et al. (2017), “From proof of concept to scalable policies: Challenges and solutions, with an application”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 31(4): 73–102.

Barrera-Osorio F, P Gertler, N Nakajima and H Patrinos (2020), “Promoting Parental Involvement in Schools: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments”, NBER Working Paper w28040. 

Estrada, R (2019), “Rules versus discretion in public service: Teacher hiring in Mexico”, Journal of Labor Economics 37(2): 545–579.

Fehr, E (2009), “On the economics and biology of trust”, Journal of the European Economic Association 7(2-3): 235–266.

Lee, J S and N K Bowen (2006), “Parent involvement, cultural capital, and the achievement gap among elementary school children”, American Educational Research Journal 43(2): 193–218.

Ostrom, E (2000), “Social capital: A fad or a fundamental concept”, Social capital: A multifaceted perspective 172(173): 195–98.

Putnam, R (2001), “Social capital: Measurement and consequences”, Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1): 41–51.

Endnotes  1 The single grant is the standard grant amount allocated to parent associations in Mexico. 

Originally published in VoxDev and VoxEU

_________

Just published online: The Role of Education in Mitigating Automation’s Effect on Wage Inequality | LABOUR |  While automation has renewed the debate about labor market policy responses to inequality and job losses, less attention has been given to education policy. We present a general equilibrium model and empirical evidence showing how education mitigates wage inequality resulting from a recent, worst‐case expectation of technology’s ability to automate job tasks. Our model predicts that education could reduce automation’s marginal effect on the wage gap between lower‐ and higher‐skilled labor by up to 3 percentage points. Education policies that promote automation‐complementing skill formation would reduce the need for costly labor market and wealth redistribution interventions later in life…

See also: What will automation do to the labor market if education quality doesn’t improve? COVID-19 offers a preview

The automation revolution is upon us: how can education systems best prepare the workers of the future?

Other news:

Research suggests that climate education for just 16 percent of secondary students in middle- and high-income countries today can lower their collective carbon footprints by nearly 19 gigatons over the next 30 years. This projected impact of climate education is better than three-quarters of the top climate solutions modeled by Project Drawdown, including conservation, agriculture, and electric cars. Based on these projections, if global leaders ensure that all children receive quality education for climate action, we could be well on our way to holding below 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature rise…

Georgian women ruled chess in the Soviet era. A new generation chases the same ‘Queen’s Gambit’ glory

We need a Marshall Plan for our schools

3 things we can do reverse the ‘COVID slide’ in education

The Impact of All-Day Schools on Student Achievement – Evidence from Extending School Days in German Primary Schools

Read@Home: Effective partnerships to reach vulnerable children in North Macedonia

Strategic investment in Georgia’s human capital will lead to a more resilient COVID-19 recovery

Pandemic Aftermath: An Outlook into Future

VoxEU: Promoting parental involvement in schools: Evidence from Mexico

Upgrading Education with Technology: Insights from Experimental Research

Finland extends compulsory schooling age to 18 | MPs also voted to make secondary education entirely free of charge

D.C. students are falling behind in remote school, with vulnerable students faring worse, data suggests

Categories COVID, Education, Human capital, Returns to education

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close